The debate which takes place each year when the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture is under review in this House is probably noted for its length and also because of the number of Deputies who take part. Naturally enough, the debate in regard to agriculture should be given the utmost attention. Deputies are given an opportunity by way of parliamentary question to elicit information concerning each Department, but only once a year are they given an opportunity of reviewing the entire agricultural policy in open debate and of making constructive criticisms and suggestions. While Ministers may change from time to time, the Department of Agriculture remains an institution set up for the benefit of the farmers. Although there may be a good deal of criticism about the methods used to administer the various schemes under the Department, we should bear in mind that we have in the Department of Agriculture perhaps the most efficient, highly skilled and best trained officers of any Department of Agriculture in any part of the world to-day. In so far as it is their duty to carry out loyally and honourably the policy of the Minister in charge of the Department, they do so; but it is part of our obligation in opposition to endeavour to steer the Minister on to what we feel is the proper line of policy to be administered by this highly efficient Department.
That is where I cannot join in the congratulations to the Minister which have been extended by the previous speaker and others. If we speak freely and frankly, we must admit that the Minister is in charge of one of the most important Departments of State. We must admit, too, that for the 15 months he has been in charge of this Department, there has been no agricultural policy whatever. It has been stated, particularly during the past hour, that so far as the agricultural community are concerned, and particularly the farmers themselves, they are not so severely affected by the rise in the cost of living. That statement was made by a colleague representing the same constituency as I represent. I do not subscribe to that, nor do I subscribe to the Deputy's sincere belief that the farmers to-day are not feeling additional living costs at a time when their incomes are drastically reduced.
It should be the aim of the Minister to be in a position to stand up with pride and delight and say that, as Minister for Agriculture, he feels sure he is the leader of the best off and most progressive section of the community. That is what the farmers should be. Consider for a moment that the price of flour has been increased by 3/6 per stone. I should like Deputy Egan to tell the House where is the farmer's house that can do without flour. Where is the farmer's wife who does not purchase flour? Where is the farming family that does not usually or frequently purchase a sack of flour? To say that the increase in the price of flour does not very seriously affect the livelihood of the farming community is a statement not in accordance with the facts and one that certainly cannot carry much weight. A few minutes ago, Deputy Moher said the majority of our farmers were small farmers. He gave the percentage and also gave the approximate acreage. Without doubt, the increases in the price of flour and bread have made things more difficult for them and added to their costs.
Deputy Egan said that the position has not in any way worsened and that the farmer's income has not in any way lessened. Whatever may be said about wheat—and I shall have a word or two to say about it—we must admit that no one in the country to-day knows what the price of this year's crop will be. It is all very fine for the Minister for Agriculture to say it will be so much. No farmer with wheat on his land to-day knows what he will get for it. The price of wheat is reduced and there is a further reduction now because of the fact that he must provide himself with his own sacks. That will represent a further reduction of about 6d. per barrel. While this year's wheat price has been reduced as compared with last year's, next harvest the farmer may find himself faced with a reduction of 12/6 or 15/- per barrel. The farmer's rates have increased. If he has a motor car, there is the additional cost of petrol. If he has machinery, there is the additional cost of oil. If we consider that state of affairs together with the other increases he is obliged to meet, it certainly makes him worse off.
At the same time, trade unionists, industrial workers and others are given the benefit of wage increases to the extent of 10/- per week. It will not be too long until further demands are made on farmers for increased wages for their agricultural workers. No one can deny that the agricultural worker is playing as important a part for the country as the farmer himself. He stands side by side with the farmer in the fields, at the sowing, at the reaping, at the fairs. He is at his beck and call in the event of beasts being ill. He is there for his Sunday milking. He is always available. Those of us who feel that the agricultural worker is not as important a citizen as the farmer himself are not expressing an honest opinion about the people who are the assistants to the main producers. While our farmers should be the best-off section of our community, beside them in that category should be the agricultural worker.
Let us ask ourselves what has taken place since the Government took office to make the farmer better off, make him more content and give encouragement to the younger people to remain on the land. We hear speeches, well-founded or otherwise. I suppose it would be impossible for a speech to be delivered here which would meet with the entire approval of every member of the House. The farmers have been criticised for having machinery and tractors. Who is better entitled to have his way of working brought up to the best and most modern ideas than the farmer himself, so that he may have greater efficiency and more speed?
We hear criticism of the farmer for indulging in the purchase of large-scale machinery, such as tractors, reapers and binders, and combines or whatever he desires to purchase to modernise his holding. Let us take that position side by side with that of the industrial worker. Some want to take away the tractors and put the farmer back to slavery with the horse. Assume that the sewing machine were taken away from the dressmaker and she were told to go back to the thimble and needle. Assume that the big machinery were taken out of the worsted mills and cloth mills and it was said that no more spinning was to be done by up-to-date modern machinery, that they were to go back to the old spinning-wheel. Is that not exactly the same as asking the farmer to surrender his up-to-date machinery and go back to hard work with horses? That day has gone and gone forever, and I am glad it is gone forever.
We are living in an age of speed and modern ideas, when people like to get all the work they can done in the shortest space of time, with the greatest speed and efficiency. How can people feel they would add to greater production by criticising our farmers for mechanising themselves? Recently it was said that at every church gate on a Sunday, the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland or whatever it may be, the entrances are completely blocked by the farmers' motor cars. There were expressions of jealousy and criticism because the farmers have reached the stage of taking their own motor cars to the church gates. I asked here, as far back as 14 or 15 years ago, and I ask it again now: "Who is better entitled to drive to town on his business when he likes or drive to church on Sunday, than the farmer?"
There seems to be an extraordinary idea in the minds of certain people that everyone should get everything— except the farmer who is footing the bill and paying for everything. It is a grand thing, and it should be the proud boast of every Deputy, that we have lived to see the day in which the ass and cart or the pony and trap, such a familiar sight outside every town and at every church gate 25 years ago, has gone. The whole world is moving fast and there have been extraordinary changes all over the world. It is only right and proper that the farmer should take his motor car and drive his family to church or anywhere else. Who is better entitled to it? I repeat that here now, for the records of the House. The Deputy who criticises the farmer for having a motor car is delivering unfair and unjust criticism. Who is better entitled to a motor car?
It may be said that the farmers are entering into strong financial commitments in the purchase of machinery. If they have not got tractors and other essential machinery, how are they to get the work done? Horse work is a thing of the past—gone and gone for ever. The tractor means more speed; it can be brought out into the field to tear the ground up, doing as much work in one day as a pair of horses would do in five days. Owing to emigration, and for other reasons, there is a serious shortage of workers on the land. We know there are numbers of unemployed, but there are many unemployed people that a farmer could not or would not have around his place. Agricultural labour calls for a certain amount of skill in working on the land. It is not every type of man who is suitable to perform such duties as are required by an up-to-date or efficient farmer.
That is why I say it is of the greatest importance that, instead of farmers being criticised for having machinery, we should say: "More power to them for having machinery." More power to them for endeavouring to get as much work done as they possibly can, as easily as they can and in the shortest possible space of time. When I hear a Deputy saying that every second farmer in the country is sinking his money in agricultural machinery and saying he felt it was money not being well spent or wisely spent, I certainly cannot subscribe to that idea.
We heard it said here to-day that the farmer is no worse off now than he was two years ago. A statement of that kind, from people who should know, is a statement on the borderline of insanity. The price of wheat and the price of barley have gone down. Grade A pigs have been reduced by 5/- a cwt.; Grade B pigs have been reduced by the factories to the extent of 50/- a cwt. That means that those actively engaged in the production of wheat, barley or pigs must be worse off this year. They have the prospect of being worse off financially at the next harvest. I fail to understand— and so do the farmers—the activities of the Minister, more particularly when compared with the performance of the past 15 months.
The farmers consult amongst themselves, as they often do and should do, and they ponder over the promises made by the Government prior to and during the general election. We were told that the farmers were on the verge of bankruptcy. We were told that the farmers were creating disaster by keeping the inter-Party Government in office. We were told that the farmer who would not vote for Fianna Fáil was cutting a stick with which to beat himself. The strange thing about the Fianna Fáil Party is that—and this is particularly true with reference to their so-called agricultural policy, a policy which they have not now and which they never had—they had a tune to suit every kind of jig in rural Ireland. They made the most extraordinary and fantastic promises, promises they now deny and say they did not make.
I do not know whether it is a state of mind into which the Fianna Fáil Party have got themselves, and I do not know whether it is due to the manner in which they fought and won the election through bluff, through false promises and through deceit, but they appear now to have worked themselves into a position in which they think they are sincere, in which they think they did not make any promises.
They concentrated entirely on the milk producing districts and in those districts they devoted all their energies to criticising the then Government, asking for the removal of the Government from office and an expression of "No confidence" in its administration by the people voting against the Government. They gave solemn undertakings from every single platform that there would be a substantial increase in the price of milk. In those areas, the milk producers banded themselves together and tore up the paving stones on the way to vote, voting in the belief and hope that they would get a substantial increase in the price of milk.
The farmers of North Kerry, of Tipperary, of Limerick, East and West, and of every milk producing district were given to believe that the moment there would be a change of Government steps would be taken to ensure that the price of milk would be substantially increased. It was not a question of asking for their votes on an undertaking that the best possible would be done for them; they were told that the moment there was a change of Government the price of milk would be substantially increased. It was pointed out to them that an increase in the price of milk was long overdue and that it should have been given by the then Government. They were told that the cost of living had gone up and had seriously affected their livelihood. But it had not gone up then to the same extent that it is gone up now.
While those promises were made to the milk producing farmers, the only interest that the present Government had in them was to capture their votes for the purpose of getting into office. They had no intention of giving them one penny-piece of an increase. I have here the Irish Independent of 12th March, 1958. There was a very important meeting held of the Limerick County Executive of the National Farmers' Association. The banner line that appeared was: “Cut in Milk Price Deplored.” The report stated:—
"The Government's decision to reduce the price of milk was described as irresponsible by the President of Limerick County Executive of the N.F.A. when he addressed a county executive meeting in Ballingarry, Rathkeale."
Every member of the N.F.A. in County Limerick can vouch for the fact that a solemn undertaking was given before the election that the price of milk would be substantially increased. They were never told that the price of milk would be reduced.
Farmers engaged in producing milk must purchase flour and the sack of flour to-day costs those farmers 3/6 per stone more than it did when the inter-Party Government was in office. Despite the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party severely criticised the price of milk prior to the general election the fact remains that, as a result of their getting into office, they have reduced the price of milk. How then can the farmer be better off to-day? We are told that he is not suffering any loss. Irrespective of whether he suffers loss or gain, he suffers from the fact that he has been deliberately deceived. No blame for that can attach to the officers of the Department of Agriculture. The blame must be placed on the responsible political head, the Minister for Agriculture, who dictates and decides the policy to be administered by his Department.
The President of the Limerick Executive of the National Farmers' Association went on to say:—
"By reducing the price of milk the Government had neither the foresight not the initiative to market milk products in a proper manner and they have struck a severe and major blow to the agricultural industry."
Thinking over the manner in which the milk producers have been deceived, I suppose that to-day quite a number of them are repenting, but they can at least see now where honesty lies. They know they have been deceived. They know they have been fooled. They know that the Government that pledged themselves to give an increase in the price of milk have failed to do so. In addition to failing in that respect, they have made the cost of living of the farmers more difficult while, at the same time, reducing his standard of living.
I do not know whether what I shall describe as the "Humbug Milk Costings Commission" is still costing the Department anything. I do not know if it has been would up. I do not know if any salaries or expenses have been paid to anyone in relation to it. It is high time that an end was put to this fraud and codology. It is high time that expenditure on this piece of deceit came to an end.
When we hear speeches to the effect that the farmer's income is not reduced and that he is not worse off than he was, we must reflect for a moment on the manner in which the Government, having successfully fooled the milk producers in other areas, concentrated on barley growers. In the barley-growing districts, where large acreages of barley were grown by contract, they devoted all their energies to telling the barley growers that all that was required was a change of Government and that, immediately, instead of 40/- a barrel, they would get 45/- a barrel for barley. It cannot be that any Minister or any member of the Government Party can deny that because I distinctly heard that being said from every Fianna Fáil platform in my constituency, which is an outstanding constituency for barley growing.
That type of speech had such a disturbing effect on hard-working decent farmers, whose land was suitable only for barley, that they decided that they had better carefully consider the matter and that it was up to them to vote for whatever Party would give them the most. They said: "we have been told that, if a change of Government takes place, we will get 45/- a barrel for barley." They believed sincerely that they would get 45/- a barrel.
What is the result? Instead of leaving the price at 40/- a barrel, Fianna Fáil reduced it to 37/- a barrel. One can sympathise with milk producers, but one must also express sympathy with the barley growers who believed that they would get a substantial increase in the price of barley and in addition, were given to understand by the same speakers that there would be a greater allocation of barley contracts, that barley contracts would be more freely given and that arrangements would be made towards that end. Strong emphasis was placed on the fact that 40/- a barrel was not a fair price for barley. The pious hope was expressed that a change of Government would put 5/- a barrel into the farmer's pocket and a solemn undertaking was given in that regard. The eyes of the dairy farmer were wiped and the farmer engaged in barley production suffered from the same deceit.
Having successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the dairy farmer and the barley producer, they then concentrated on the wheat-growing areas. What they did not say or promise in those areas could not be described in any debate in this House. Although the Minister may say that he promised nothing and the Taoiseach may say that his Government promised nothing in the way of an increase in the price of wheat or the restoration of the 12/6 per barrel by which wheat was reduced during the term of office of the inter-Party Government, the promises made to the dairy farmer and to the barley producer fade into pale insignificance when compared with the picture that was painted for the wheat producer.
We were told that anyone who did not grow wheat was not a good Irishman or a good farmer. We were told that no one could take credit for wheat growing but Fianna Fáil, that they alone were responsible for the birth of the idea of wheat growing and for the development of that idea down through the years. The farmers were told that it was the intention of the inter-Party Government to kill wheat growing, to deprive those who had made any profit out of wheat growing of that profit, to deny the farming community the benefits to be derived from wheat growing. They were told that the inter-Party Government had devoted all their energies to attacking wheat producers. Fianna Fáil pointed out that, after a bad year, the most savage and the most bitter attack and the greatest possible raid that could be made on the pockets of wheat growers was the reduction of 12/6 per barrel.
Speeches were made throughout the length and breadth of the country in the saddest possible tone. Those speeches re-echoed in the hills. It was even whispered in the silent homesteads at night-time that farmers should be on their guard, that wheat had been reduced already by 12/6 a barrel; that, if there was a change of Government, that 12/6 would be restored and that there would also be a guarantee that there would be no reduction in the price of wheat, that Fianna Fáil would assure the farmers that there would be no question of a reduction, that they could always look forward to the sky being the limit in the matter of wheat production.
The most simple-minded Fianna Fáil supporter was let loose throughout the country and instructed as to how to speak on wheat, where to speak on wheat, what to say on wheat and what to promise on wheat. Peaceful country homesteads were invaded after midnight by canvassers. The people were told that, by returning Fianna Fáil, not only would the wheat cut be restored, but that there would be a great future for wheat growing, that there would be no such thing as restriction of acreage, that the more they grew the more they would be paid, that it was the only possible profitable crop. Some of their canvassers went even further and said that the greater the acreage under wheat, the better, because then there would be sufficient for home requirements and a surplus for export and that, therefore, the harder the wheat producer worked, the better he would be paid and the quicker they put the existing Government out of office, the better.
What was the result? The result was the very opposite. Wheat producers followed the dairy farmers and the barley producers. The wheat producer was likewise deceived. The higher they put him, the greater was the fall. The wheat producer got the greatest fall of all. He did not get his 12/6 restored. Instead, he suffered a substantial cut per barrel. He is in the position to-day that he is like Mohammed's coffin, neither up nor down, but in the air, because nobody knows what the price of wheat will be next harvest. They may say that it will be reduced by 5/- or 6/- a barrel from the acreage that I see.
I feel that there is as much land under wheat this year as there has been in the past. I do not know what the latest statistics are as to the amount of wheat sown, but I feel that the reduction in the price of wheat will be from 12/- to 15/- a barrel. On top of that, for the first time, they will have to provide their own sacks, which means they will have to pay, approximately, 6d. a barrel extra. Then we are told the farmer is better off, that he is a more prosperous man and that he does not suffer any loss. Who believes that kind of codology?
I am only sorry that for the speeches made here on this Estimate by the Fianna Fáil Party we had not a large audience of milk producers, a large audience of barley producers and wheat producers, because the speeches from Fianna Fáil on this Estimate to-day were the very opposite to the speeches made prior to the last general election. When I heard Deputy Gibbons speak this evening my mind went back to the Kilkenny by-election when he was concentrating on milk and wheat. The sting had gone from his remarks to-day; it was a different kind of speech altogether.
Having successfully fooled those engaged in barley production, Fianna Fáil then said: "Is there any other source of income we can attack in order to make a proper raid on the pockets of the farmers?" Having successfully reduced the price of milk, wheat and barley, they proceeded to reduce the price of Grade A pigs by 5/- a cwt., which means that the farmer engaged in pig production is getting less for his pigs. Many farmers have gone out of pig production. It is a strange fact, however, that although the farmer gets 5/- a cwt. less for his Grade A pigs, there does not seem to be any such thing in the shops as Grade A, Grade B or Grade C bacon or any other grade of bacon. The price of pigs seemed to drop but the price of bacon sold over the counter seemed to increase. However, I suppose that is something about which the Minister for Industry and Commerce might like to hear something when his Estimate comes before us for review.
If I were asked by any member of the Fianna Fáil Party what good the present Government did for farmers since they assumed office, I would be extremely sorry to say I could not point out any one item. I cannot point to anything they did that increased the farmer's income or profits. It is true to say that they did agree to export horse flesh under licence. I think that was announced in the Dáil last October. I do not know whether or not that was a wise decision but, wise or unwise, it is the decision that was taken. Personally I would not like to have subscribed to that idea because certain dangers were there and are there. Even though the announcement was made last October that horse flesh was to be exported I doubt if a single horse was slaughtered; in fact I doubt if any licence was issued. However, now that the Government has decided to export horse flesh, I trust every precaution will be taken to see that it will be clearly indicated that it is going from this country as horse flesh and that it cannot be taken by any means in the country to which it will be exported as meat for human consumption, because a great deal of harm could be done to our good name on the Continent in that respect. If, in the event of horse flesh being exported, there are any such instances to which the attention of the Minister is directed, I hope the position will be reviewed.
The only other decision I have known to be taken was in connection with the Landrace pig. Whether that was a wise decision or not also remains to be seen. I wonder whether the Minister for Agriculture has taken every care to be guided by the veterinary section of his Department; only time can tell. Whilst the Minister has the right to dictate policy and to make decisions, I trust that in the two instances to which I referred, that of the export of horse flesh and the Landrace pig, a careful examination was made.
When the inter-Party Government were in office there did not seem to be a single word spoken from the Fianna Fáil Party in praise of any act performed by that Government in relation to agriculture. Have there been any achievements since? I am afraid that by 1961 or 1962, as a result of the present Government's agricultural policy, if any, this country will find itself where it was in 1948 and our farmers will find themselves in the position they were in prior to 1948. If cattle were taken away from this country and if the present favourable prices for cattle did not prevail, I ask this House what would be the circumstances of the Irish farmer to-day? Is it not the price of cattle that is keeping this country going as it is?
You have Fianna Fáil speakers who will be bold and brave enough to stand up on a platform, even at this late stage, and say: "While the price of wheat, barley and pigs is down, look at the price of cattle." They had as much to do with the price of cattle which prevails to-day as Brian Boru had. I feel that if there is any thanks to be given to the cattle industry, it must be given to the terms of the 1948 Trade Agreement. Since we obtained native government, there is no agreement which brought greater benefits to the country, or bestowed such financial benefits on the farmers, than that agreement. It linked up the price the Irish farmer gets for his live stock with the price the British farmer gets on the British market.
Fianna Fáil have shown themselves extraordinary converts to the British market when speaking of present-day cattle prices. It is not a year ago that many members of the Fianna Fáil Party were again anxious to look with suspicion on the British market and every member of the Party knows that their nightly and morning prayer was that "The British market is gone and gone for ever, thanks be to God." That prayer was echoed day and night by Fianna Fáil speakers.
A statement was made in the House of Commons to-day dealing with supplies of butter from this country, and it was stated that Ireland, like other countries, would have to curtail the amount of butter to be exported to Great Britain. So, perhaps, in the long run, their prayer may be granted.
Remember that all the energies of the Fianna Fáil Party were concentrated on undermining and damaging the British market, and whilst you may seek markets all over the whole world, everyone, with any common sense or intelligence, knows that the British market is at our doorstep. It is the best market and it is the nearest market and it is up to our Ministers to make it the most profitable market. It is the market we should concentrate on.
When we have any surplus agricultural produce for export, where could we get a better customer than our next-door neighbour? Apart from that, there is nobody in the country, and particularly nobody on this side of the House, anxious to see that our farmers supply Great Britain with food at a cheap rate. On the contrary, it is our ambition to get the best possible price for anything we send to England. That is where the Minister for Agriculture and the Government have the responsibility for negotiating and I hope that if there are any negotiations in the future, in connection with markets with Great Britain, they will come out as successful as the inter-Party Government did from their negotiations in that line, and that the financial benefits for the Irish farmers will be as great.
The 1948 Trade Agreement brought millions and millions of pounds into the pockets of the Irish farmers, and, but for it, there would be numerous farmers not on the verge of bankruptcy but bankrupt and in the county homes. One seldom hears a single word of praise for the benefits of the 1948 Trade Agreement which I feel was the greatest financial achievement of any Government since this State was founded. Nobody knows that better than the staunchest Fianna Fáil supporter who sits in this House, but who, through political spite, will not admit it because he is afraid his friends might laugh at him or he might be the recipient of a rebuke from his Party leaders. In their hearts, however, they know that the greatest achievement was that 1948 Trade Agreement.
I want to refer to the fact that we now have 1,000,000 more acres of arable land than we had. How did that come about? It did not happen overnight; it happened through hard work, through planning, and because the Government were prepared to spend money on reclaiming waste land and bogland. Whilst the Government enjoy the task of hurling criticism, they give no credit at all and take no pride in the fact, as Irishmen should, that, through their own Department of Agriculture, through their own engineers and through their own workers and farmers, we were responsible for converting 1,000,000 acres of useless land into good productive land.
I said here last year that if we were to take up a newspaper and read in it that any Government on the Continent, or in the world, had introduced a scheme, the net result of which was that that country's wealth had been improved to the extent of adding to it 1,000,000 acres of arable land, we would sit back and say that that must be a wonderful country, that they must have a wonderful Government, that they must be wonderful people to have created 1,000,000 acres of arable land.
That is really the position so far as we are concerned. We have that to our credit. No matter what Minister is in charge, it is an advantage that is there; it is additional wealth; and it is a benefit to the farming community who own it and a national asset of which we can all be proud. It is an outstanding achievement. When we consider that we have only 12,000,000 acres of arable land, do we not consider the addition of 1,000,000 acres an outstanding achievement?
I wonder what is the attitude of the Minister to the future of that scheme, because there seems to be as great a demand for the advantages of the land rehabilitation scheme as there ever was. Every Deputy knows that every morning when his post arrives it contains a request from some farmer for the advantages of the land rehabilitation scheme. Could we not have a clear statement on the future of the scheme, so that those who have put their money into the purchase of machinery, bulldozers and so on, for land reclamation will know there is a future for it, because the inter-Party Government gave an undertaking that the scheme would not end while there was a single acre of land to be reclaimed?
No such undertaking has been given by the Minister. Every Deputy in rural Ireland knows that the land reclamation scheme is not going ahead with the same speed as in the past. There appear to be deliberate departmental delays—I do not say on the part of individual officers but on ministerial instructions. There is a general slowing down of the scheme. What greater scheme or greater method exists for sinking money in land than reclamation of the land? The work being done falls far short of the desires of many farmers who still have large tracts of land to be reclaimed. In the Midlands, where there are a number of joint applications by groups of farmers for grants for drainage of tillage fields or grasslands, there seems to be an extraordinary slowing up of the work and, as may be seen in the Book of Estimates, no substantially increased amount is being provided for it.
Land reclamation not only provides work but gives the farmer security as he is reclaiming his own land and he can see waste land turned into productive soil. When he has to pay rates for it, he knows he will be paying for something that will be of use to him and which will give him some financial return. All farmers to-day regard the land reclamation scheme as of outstanding importance and of great financial benefit, and for the Government even to think of slowing down that scheme is nothing short of national sabotage. While we have 1,000,000 acres already reclaimed, it is possible to add substantially to that figure and it should be the aim of the Government to provide money for that purpose. It would be money spent more beneficially than that which is allocated even for relief schemes or other employment schemes: it would be money spent wisely and well, if it were spent in making the land fit for increased production.
The Minister should express an opinion, not his own opinion but the policy of the Government, in relation to land reclamation. After making a survey in each county as to the number of applications awaiting attention, he should aim at having, in the next four years, substantially larger sums of money set aside for this work.
Dealing with one other project which the inter-Party Government put into operation with financial advantage to our people, we find that under the limestone scheme over 1,000,000 tons of lime per year were provided for the land at the lowest price in the world. There is no doubt that scheme was absolutely essential. It was an outstanding aid to increasing production; it has helped to nourish the land and put into a state of health land which was starved and impoverished. The inter-Party Government removed a Fianna Fáil tax on superphosphate so that phosphates were available at world prices. That also added to the nourishment of the land and to the financial return of the farmers. It helped to provide good feeding for the live stock now being exported and for which Fianna Fáil are inclined to take credit.
The farm building scheme helped farmers to provide suitable housing for their cattle and substantial grants were made available for haysheds but the Government could do more in that direction. When one travels through the country, one sees a vast number of small farmers' residences with either a few cocks or a rick of hay at the end of each house, and one wonders why more advantage has not been taken of grants that are available for the erection of haybarns.
The Department, I feel, should survey the farms requiring haybarns in various areas and, where the circumstances of the small farmers are such that they could not contribute a reasonable share towards the work or where the title deeds are not in order, debarring them from an agricultural credit loan for that purpose, some steps should be taken to make finances available for the erection of haybarns. I am sure there are records in the offices of the Agricultural Credit Corporation of numerous applications for loans for haybarns which were rejected because the titles were not in order. In many cases, farmers dislike consulting solicitors on questions of title because they fear being involved in legal costs and prefer to leave their lands in the names of their grandfathers or great-grandfathers rather than have the titles brought up to date. In some cases, it costs a certain amount of money, but I think the Minister should consult with his colleagues in the Government and see what could be done to have farmers' titles put in order, so that, particularly in the case of the poorer farmers, they may be able to avail of credit facilities that exist, particularly in connection with the erection of haybarns.
I know at least two dozen farmers in my constituency who could not get haybarn loans because of defective titles. If they were to put their titles in order, it would involve them in legal expenses which they were not prepared to meet. Some steps should be taken to have these titles put in order for small farmers who find it impossible to meet the legal costs of having it done themselves.
Another solemn guarantee given by the inter-Party Government was that providing the farmer with minimum prices for feeding barley for pigs. Soil testing facilities were made available and 100,000 samples were tested per year. Last, but not least, they put into operation the parish plan to provide advisory services for farmers on their own farms.
I believe it was Deputy Dillon who made reference to the extraordinary number of highly qualified professional people, particularly in agriculture, who were obliged to leave this country because they could not get suitable positions here. They went to Canada, Rhodesia, America and Great Britain. Is it not possible to utilise the services of such highly qualified people here in their own country? Is it not common knowledge to the Minister for Agriculture that every time a vacancy occurs for an agricultural instructor under any committee of agriculture there are at least from six to ten applicants for it? Again, we must bear in mind the expense to which the parents of such qualified people have gone to provide their sons with a high standard of education, sufficient to obtain their degrees in agriculture.
I, and I am sure every Deputy in the House, would like to hear from the Minister what are his plans for the advancement of the parish plan. Is it not a fact that there are groups of parishes calling out for parish agents? Is it not a fact that these appeals not alone receive the blind eye but also the deaf ear of the Department? Is it not a fact, which can be established from the records, that a very big number of people qualified in agriculture have emigrated during the past year and a half, and particularly during the past six months? Is it not also a fact that a number of veterinary officers and surgeons have left the service of the Department of Agriculture?
Is it not further a fact that the question of all-round general improvement in both pay and conditions for veterinary surgeons has not been given the active attention that it should have received from the Minister, with the result that since last January a number of veterinary surgeons employed by the Department of Agriculture have emigrated? They are a loss to the community, to the profession and to the farmers who are anxious to avail of the services of such professional people. I do not say that they should not be allowed to go if they want, but I do say there is work for them here. Their terms of employment should be sufficiently attractive to keep them here.
I am sure most Deputies have a knowledge of the working of the parish plan and of the great benefits it has brought. The areas where parish agents are available cannot be compared with areas in which no parish agent is available. I know that from my own experience in my constituency where the parish plan has been in operation in the districts of Arras, Greycullen and Killasher. A parish agent is there at the beck and call of every farmer, big and small. His advice is free and he is anxious to help and advise farmers on soil testing and crop rotation. A parish agent is of tremendous benefit to any rural district.
I cannot understand why steps have not been taken during the past 12 months to make a greater drive for the establishment of parish agents in areas which have not got them. The agents are available and the farming community are crying out for them. Through lack of foresight, through lack of policy, through lack of sincerity and through lack of progressive thought the Government have failed to realise the importance of the parish plan, and of the manner in which the farming community, rich and poor alike, are crying out for the services of parish agents.
I would ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously. He should give a statement of policy on it, not for the House alone, but for the country. The farming community cannot understand why some areas enjoy those services and others do not. I trust that some steps will be taken to see that more serious thought is given to the parish plan. I hope that more serious thought will be given to the parents who have spent large sums of money on the education of their children in order that they might secure degrees in agriculture.
I remember that in 1948 or 1949 Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, advised parents to concentrate on agricultural education for their children. They were told of the future that lay in agriculture for them. Now we see that most of those qualified in agriculture have only the emigrant ship to take them to the greater Ireland beyond the Atlantic, and across the Irish Sea to seek a livelihood outside their own country. I hope that state of affairs will be rectified and that some effort will be made to meet the situation.
Reference has been made to the question of the all-Irish wheat loaf. I have a feeling that the 100 per cent. Irish loaf is coming and I agree with it. I think that the Minister for Agriculture should consult with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to see that the millers or whoever is responsible, will adjust their machinery so that it will be suitable for the production of the all Irish loaf. It is all very fine for the millers to say that they cannot do this, they cannot do that and they cannot do the other. I feel that sooner or later the Irish loaf is coming. If we are to benefit by the coming of the 100 per cent. Irish loaf, a group of citizens like the millers should not be allowed to hinder it. If there are to be adjustments made in machinery to meet their requirements, the Minister for Industry and Commerce should take steps to convey that to the millers.
The importance of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme could not possibly be over-emphasised. That scheme has been in existence in Great Britain for about 25 years. I have a feeling that were it not for the inter-Party Government commencing it, it would not be started in this country yet. The co-operation of the farmers was asked in respect of that scheme. During the past few months statements were made by certain farmers' organisations in an effort to make known their grievances with regard to milk prices. Appeals were made to farmers not to co-operate with the scheme.
I think that was bad advice, wrong advice and unreasonable advice. I think that the associations anxious to ventilate their grievance by such tactics were not performing a national duty. I hope that the farming community who may have a grievance will ventilate their grievance other than by refusing to co-operate in that very important scheme because at the moment there can be no scheme of greater or more vital importance. We are told that by 1961 only T.B. free cattle are to be admitted into Great Britain. We must now realise that we are on the doorstep, so to speak, of 1961 and whilst it has taken almost 25 years to have complete free herds in Great Britain our scheme is only in operation for the past four or four-and-a-half years.
I think wonderful headway has been made in that respect. I feel that was due to the drive, foresight and initiative of Deputy Dillon, who as Minister for Agriculture, stressed the importance of co-operation by the farmers in the scheme. I feel that the Minister for Agriculture, in view of the importance of the scheme, should be clear with the people on policy in that regard. I have a feeling that the farming community at large do not realise the seriousness of the position. The seriousness of the position would be seen at once if their live stock were not allowed into Great Britain. They would then realise the serious financial loss not only to the country but to themselves. It is in their own interests to take full advantage of the scheme. It is in the interests of the community in general that the Minister for Agriculture should be more generous with regard to the administration of that scheme.
I have a feeling that where compensation has been paid, valuations are being sent into the Department with which the farmer may not fully agree. I think it is the policy of the Department to try to keep the demands on State funds as low as possible under that scheme. Full compensation is not being paid in all cases and I would ask the Minister to take steps to see that the officers of the Department will not be niggardly in administering the scheme. If there is any question of doubt as to the value of the reactors, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the farmers because if we want the farmers to co-operate, it should be made known to them that they will not be at any financial loss by co-operating. Let them know that the hand of friendship will be stretched forth from the Department of Agriculture and that they will not be at any financial loss.
My opinion as to why a number of farmers are not fully availing of the scheme is that the farmers feel that full compensation is not being paid or will not be paid. I would ask the Department and the Minister to issue an instruction to the officers of the Department dealing with that problem to be generous with the farmers. If they are generous, I feel that the farmers will throw their weight behind the scheme and co-operate in every possible way with the Government.
The manner in which the Department deals with grants for cow-houses under that scheme is wrong. I would now make an appeal—a very strong appeal—that that grant should be increased as an encouragement to farmers to come forward and to avail of the scheme. I think that every possible encouragement that can be given to our farmers to co-operate should be given—even to the extent of formulating a new scheme of grants to assist them in every way, provided they comply with the full terms of the scheme.
With regard to the water supply scheme, that has been in operation for a number of years past. Again, like the land rehabilitation scheme, it is generally felt throughout the country that the Government are deliberately slowing down the water supply scheme. Everybody knows quite well that there is nothing more important or more necessary to the farming community than to have water, if possible, in the house. Rural electrification is nearing completion in most counties, and where we have that state of affairs it is quite simple and easy for farmers to be provided with electric pumps.
I have known of a number of farmers who made applications to the Department for grants and long periods have elapsed during the consideration of such applications. I have a feeling that steps are being taken by the Department to prolong such applications so as to discourage farmers from availing of the scheme.
There has been a great deal of talk, particularly by Deputy N. Egan, in regard to credit facilities. Deputy N. Egan referred to the fact that farmers, small farmers particularly, ought to be given credit facilities in order to increase production. Last week, Deputy Dillon pointed out that there were funds available for farmers who required loans and that money would be available for any credit-worthy farmer. Money is available for the credit-worthy farmer but it is the non-credit-worthy farmer we are worrying about. That is why I cannot subscribe to the idea that ample money is available for the farming community in order to increase production. I have a feeling that the people who really deserve it do not get it. Any bank or any financial institution will advance money to an extensive farmer who has full title deeds and good and ample security, but the small farmer—the 20 to 30 acre farmer, or less—who requires money to purchase live stock, to carry out farm improvements or for the many other calls on his purse such as the breaking-up of additional land, payment for seeds or the other little incidentals that crop up from time to time during the year on a small farm is very seriously handicapped through lack of credit.
In the past, the Agricultural Credit Corporation served a fairly good purpose. In 30 years, the Agricultural Credit Corporation issued a total of 47,000 loans of which less than 45,000 were for loans of £500 or under. The number of loans issued for sums between £500 and £1,000 was 1,756, while bigger loans, over £1,000, totalled 555. The small farmer is handicapped for lack of capital. The question arises because it is mainly the small, poor farmer who has not proper title or who has not taken out proper administration in respect of his father's or his grandfather's estate, who is involved; there is some legal hitch that cannot easily be got over. The Agricultural Credit Corporation will not waste much time with a person who has a defective title.
Some steps ought to be taken to provide capital for small farmers because, in the long run, it is the small farmer who does the work and who produces anything. I know quite well that merchants find farmers to be honest to a high degree and that merchants with bad debts are few and far between. On the whole, the banks do not seem to be as liberal in giving out money to a small farmer as to a farmer with very good security. As Deputy Egan rightly pointed out, no farmer likes to sign for his neighbour because, as surely as he signs for two or three good neighbours, he will sign for the fellow who is a bad debt and that will sour him against signing for anybody else. I am not saying that any farmer would ask a person to sign as guarantor with the full intention of deliberately letting him down, but it often arises that a farmer is never in circumstances to repay and therefore the person who signs must pay.
In recent years, people have got very careful not to put their names either on bank bills or on guarantee notes for the repayment of loans for their neighbours. I suppose they cannot be blamed for that attitude, but at the same time we cannot say there is a high degree of dishonesty. No farmer likes to be put to the humiliation of having to ask his neighbour to put his name to a bank bill for £100, £150 or £200. First and foremost, they may not all refuse, but it is not a nice thing to do. A man's holding or property ought to be sufficient guarantee, without having to knot up his neighbour in his personal and financial affairs.
Another thing that is disliked about the Agricultural Credit Corporation is the fact that civic guards are notified to check up on the ability of an applicant to pay. That is a wrong practice and it ought to be stopped. I am not saying that the guards do not treat the matter as confidential. Nevertheless, many people would like to see their affairs treated in strict confidence and do not like even the members of the Garda Síochána to know they are making applications for loans or have them inquiring about them from their neighbours. Generally speaking, I think it is wrong and some steps should be taken to simplify the method of providing loans for small farmers.
The Government have made a bad job of agriculture. The farming community are the poorer for the past 15 months. They have the prospects of a poor harvest and poor prices. If cattle prices were not as they are at present, I venture to say that the farming community would be in a very serious plight. The Government hold out no future for the farmer. No definite, long-term line of policy is laid out before them. A member of the Government said last week-end that farmers are expected to produce more, to work harder—and they must be patriotic and be prepared to take less for it. If that is evidence of a sound agricultural policy, I am sorry for the country. I feel it is the type of policy one would expect to see coming from Grangegorman, or some place like that, but not from a sane, sound Government who are supposed to have the interests of the community at heart.
The farmers were always and are still prepared to work but they are given no lead. They cannot plan from year to year because they do not know what lies ahead. There is a wave of uncertainty which has always surrounded the Fianna Fáil Governments. There is a lack of guarantees, a lack of policy and a lack of drive. There is the ever-present uncertainty and fear of severe drops in prices and of a general all-round reduction in the amount to be expended for the benefit of the agricultural community.
The farmers are disappointed with the activities of the past 15 months and are, in fact, completely disillusioned. The Minister for Agriculture must face the problem more courageously and get a long-term policy, which he does not seem to have or to be thinking about. He must extend a greater hand of friendship and co-operation to the National Farmers' Association and be prepared to take advice when it is tendered by such people. Unless he is prepared to act on that advice and assist in finding profitable markets for our agricultural exports—unless some firm, broad agricultural policy is formulated—I have a feeling that our farmers will again fall into despair and that, by the time 1960 comes, the farmers will find themselves in the condition in which they were in 1946 and 1947.
